no. I remember hitting a bh return winner off of a first serve, but my partner called it out, from his angle it was out, but i was standing right ontop of things and i could clearly see that it hit the line. ever since then we trust each other.

If they other team is fair I think it's only right to over rule your partner if you see it's in. If they are making shoddy calls, I let it be. Basically if they are playing balls a few inches out I return the favor and play their barely out balls if they call lines out I return the favor likewise. I think it's lowbrow way to of doing things if your partner gives them shtty line calls when they've been fair to your team.

I generally go with my partner's call unless it's completely off. If my opponents continue questioning the call after I verify my partner's call, I usually end up offering to replay the point. No point arguing for 20 minutes over a call

I've done it and it is never good for team work, but at least I don't feel guilty about it later. When they've done it to me, sometimes they have been wrong and that got me steamed.

Click to expand...

Only if it is an obvious mistake or hook. The opposition aren't usually all that stupid, so you try and call it how you see it. If it is close, I prefer to let it go unless he keeps calling all the close ones out.

Even if you are certain that he/she is wrong? How is that not cheating?

Click to expand...

It is cheating if you are convinced they missed the call & don't speak up.

I don't overrule if the partner is in better position for the call &
I'm not sure about the call though. You have to call it in when in doubt
where it is your call to make, but you don't need to overrule just because of that
doubt. You have to trust the partner made the right call if he had better position
& made the call.

This should rarely happen because it is the one who is nearest to the ball to make the call. If the partner calls it out immediately I'd say 99% of the time he saw it better than you...

Click to expand...

This is fallacious thinking and is a very common misconception. The person closest to the ball very often does not have the best view of the ball with respect to the line. If a player is very close to the bounce point, their ability to make an accurate call on a ball on the line or close to the line is very poor.

The problem in this situation is that the player in question is usually trying to track the ball rather than focusing on the line. Certified linesman are taught not to watch the ball when it approaches close to a line of interest. If it appears that a ball will bounce close to a line, they stop watching the ball and focus on the line instead -- keeping their head & eyes very still before and after the bounce event.

This is not the case with the player who is trying to to return a ball. They are tracking the ball and their head and/or eyes are usually moving. Studies have shown that our ability to make an accurate ball when the head/eyes are moving is extremely poor.

In addition, even when the head/eyes are still, the ball is usually traversing the field of vision much too quickly when it is in close proximity for the smooth pursuit (visual) system to track accurately. Quite often, the ball essentially becomes "invisible" for a short period of time when it is in close proximity. How often do you really seen the ball as it comes into contact with your strings? It is impossible most of the time. This is a similar situation for balls that bounce very close to us.

I generally go with my partner's call unless it's completely off. If my opponents continue questioning the call after I verify my partner's call, I usually end up offering to replay the point. No point arguing for 20 minutes over a call

Click to expand...

I appreciate the spirit of this thinking, but I encourage everyone to occasionally go back and read "The Code" along with the rules, just to help with a sense of clarity out there more often than not.

The way our game is intended is that we only take points that we've earned. Opponents get the benefit of the doubt. I think it's as simple as can be to stick with the rule of thumb where if there is doubt, there is no doubt. That means the point goes to your opponent(s) unless you know you've won it.

Whenever we consider replaying a point (I've done it, too), we're kidding ourselves - there's doubt, yet we're not giving the point to our opponents. Maybe it keeps the peace, but it leaves that lingering air of uncertainty hanging over the match. If your opponent can't respect your overrule... well, that sucks, but I prefer not to be bullied into cheating.

Most of the time it's on serve returns that my partners make mistakes, and when I don't overrule them it feels like cheating, but when I do, the partner is upset, lingering doubt or not, as to my calls.

The biggest misconception when it comes to line calls in doubles is that people think that if partners don't know about a ball that the other partner called out, it casts doubt. That's not the way it works.

Partners DO NOT have to agree on a line call. They just CANNOT disagree on the line call.

If your partner calls it out, and you are sure it was out when asked by the opponent, tell them it was out. That should end the discussion.

If your partner calls it out, and you didn't see it either because you were not looking where it hit, or you were blocked by your partner, or your partner just had a better look at it then you, when you are asked by the opponents just tell them that your partner had a better look, or something like that. That does not justify the opponents claiming the point as partners not agreeing. Also, there is nothing in the rules that allows you to replay the point if you are unsure of a line call. It's either in or it's out. It's either your point, or their point.

If your partner calls it out, and you flat out saw it clearly good, it's your responsibility to overrule the partner's call. Then, you lose the point. You don't replay it.

I second what JT said about closest = clearest. Not so. Especially if you're both playing back, your partner has a MUCH clearer view of the ball vs. the baseline. If it's bouncing that near the line, you shouldn't have a super clear view if you're planning to hit the ball. Now, for wide calls on your side, that's where it gets tricky. That's when it's your call unless your partner calls it wide adamantly and you weren't positive. That last one happened to me yesterday.

This is fallacious thinking and is a very common misconception. The person closest to the ball very often does not have the best view of the ball with respect to the line. If a player is very close to the bounce point, their ability to make an accurate call on a ball on the line or close to the line is very poor.

The problem in this situation is that the player in question is usually trying to track the ball rather than focusing on the line. Certified linesman are taught not to watch the ball when it approaches close to a line of interest. If it appears that a ball will bounce close to a line, they stop watching the ball and focus on the line instead -- keeping their head & eyes very still before and after the bounce event.

This is not the case with the player who is trying to to return a ball. They are tracking the ball and their head and/or eyes are usually moving. Studies have shown that our ability to make an accurate ball when the head/eyes are moving is extremely poor.

In addition, even when the head/eyes are still, the ball is usually traversing the field of vision much too quickly when it is in close proximity for the smooth pursuit (visual) system to track accurately. Quite often, the ball essentially becomes "invisible" for a short period of time when it is in close proximity. How often do you really seen the ball as it comes into contact with your strings? It is impossible most of the time. This is a similar situation for balls that bounce very close to us.

This is fallacious thinking and is a very common misconception. The person closest to the ball very often does not have the best view of the ball with respect to the line. If a player is very close to the bounce point, their ability to make an accurate call on a ball on the line or close to the line is very poor.

The problem in this situation is that the player in question is usually trying to track the ball rather than focusing on the line. Certified linesman are taught not to watch the ball when it approaches close to a line of interest. If it appears that a ball will bounce close to a line, they stop watching the ball and focus on the line instead -- keeping their head & eyes very still before and after the bounce event.

This is not the case with the player who is trying to to return a ball. They are tracking the ball and their head and/or eyes are usually moving. Studies have shown that our ability to make an accurate ball when the head/eyes are moving is extremely poor.

In addition, even when the head/eyes are still, the ball is usually traversing the field of vision much too quickly when it is in close proximity for the smooth pursuit (visual) system to track accurately. Quite often, the ball essentially becomes "invisible" for a short period of time when it is in close proximity. How often do you really seen the ball as it comes into contact with your strings? It is impossible most of the time. This is a similar situation for balls that bounce very close to us.

Click to expand...

SA, are you talking about having both players back (other than ROS)? Cuz, I am talking about having both players up 1/2 of the time or more, or one up one back.

If both players are up - balls that goes wide cannot be easily called by the partner further away. First you got the other partner in the way, second, it goes parallel to the line, which is harder to call. If you get a deep lob and that means only one guy is chasing it, turning 180 facing the fence, the net should be moving to cover, should not be 180 ball watching. Therefore the guy chasing the ball should have the best view of the bounce.

If playing one up one back - I can see the situation you described, but only when the baseline guy is standing very close to the baseline hitting a ball on the rise. perhaps? I play singles and have no problem calling a baseline ball out unless it is super fast going right at my feet, AND I am standing a couple inches from the baseline. I mean I have to stand my ground and not move back at all to let happen. IF the ball is bouncing on the far side, over the net guy wide, or long, the net guy should switch to the other side while the baseline guy goes after that ball. The net guy is going away from the ball, it would be difficult to call the baseline ball out.

Only a person who is in line with the baseline like a line judge can call it better. But the net person is never in line with the baseline at any given time. So this only works on calling a serve or when both guys are back. I am no expert doubles player but I never play both back. My coach pushes us to play both up. And when we play one up one back the net guy is too busy cover the net and doesn't look back long enough to make over rule calls.

Where I see the bad calls made is on the serves. I see the ball on the line and the partner does not. So I either overrule and bear the brunt of partner hatred of don't and cringe.

Click to expand...

i see a lot of bad calls on the baseline as well, when my partner hits a ball that´s near him, or he has to turn sideways to reach it and loses track of the ball while turning.
my partners usually don´t hate me when i overrule them. i select them carefully for sportsmanship

question for woodrow in particular(since i understand you´re a professional umpire)
when i play on clay, do i need to be able to show a clear mark if i call a ball out?
problem 1, sometimes on wet courts it´s difficult to see a clear mark
problem 2, once i look away from the mark, i might not be able to find it again with certainty. in situations when i don´t expect the call to be challenged in the first place that can happen.

really close calls are really pretty close and can go either way depending on the view. look at the partner and sense a quick decision as the team and move on and don't think back. same thing probably going on at the other side. these kinda calls should even out over time. And karma probably got the bad ones already, i hope.

SA, are you talking about having both players back (other than ROS)? Cuz, I am talking about having both players up 1/2 of the time or more, or one up one back.

If both players are up - balls that goes wide cannot be easily called by the partner further away. First you got the other partner in the way, second, it goes parallel to the line, which is harder to call. If you get a deep lob and that means only one guy is chasing it, turning 180 facing the fence, the net should be moving to cover, should not be 180 ball watching. Therefore the guy chasing the ball should have the best view of the bounce.

If playing one up one back - I can see the situation you described, but only when the baseline guy is standing very close to the baseline hitting a ball on the rise. perhaps? I play singles and have no problem calling a baseline ball out unless it is super fast going right at my feet, AND I am standing a couple inches from the baseline. I mean I have to stand my ground and not move back at all to let happen. IF the ball is bouncing on the far side, over the net guy wide, or long, the net guy should switch to the other side while the baseline guy goes after that ball. The net guy is going away from the ball, it would be difficult to call the baseline ball out.

Only a person who is in line with the baseline like a line judge can call it better. But the net person is never in line with the baseline at any given time. So this only works on calling a serve or when both guys are back. I am no expert doubles player but I never play both back. My coach pushes us to play both up. And when we play one up one back the net guy is too busy cover the net and doesn't look back long enough to make over rule calls.

Click to expand...

No, I was not specifically referring to the case where both players are back.

I agree that a line judge who is in line with the baseline usually has the best perspective on a ball encroaching that line. Quite often, however, we have seen where a chair umpire, who clearly is not in line with the baseline, will overrule a call made by a baseline judge.

As I mentioned previously, the baseline judge has several advantages over a player who is in very close proximity to ball that bounces near the baseline. The line judge is further from bounce location so the ball is not traveling across their field of vision as rapidly. The line judge is not moving their head & eyes during the bounce or just prior to it. The gaze of the line judge is on the line and not on the ball.

A partner in the forecourt (closer to the net) often also has these 3 advantages over a player that is very close to the bounce location. Of course, their vantage point is not as good the vantage point of the line judge. However, for the 3 reasons stated, they are often is a better position to make the line call than the player who is very close to the ball.

Over the 40 years that I have been playing the sport I have seen this situation hundreds, if not thousands, of times. The player who is very close to the ball will often be unable to make an accurate call even for balls that are 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 cm) past or short of the line if they are focused on the ball (or if their gaze is fixated on their contact point rather than on the baseline). Quite often, the other 3 players on the court can clearly see if such a ball is in or out even tho' the closest player cannot. However, for bounces that are much closer to the line (say less than a few cm), it is much more difficult for any of the players to make the determination.

NOTE: If the net player is turning their head or moving their eyes as the ground contact is happening, their ability to make an accurate call is extremely poor. I have also seen this situation happen numerous times in both tennis and badminton.

question for woodrow in particular(since i understand you´re a professional umpire)
when i play on clay, do i need to be able to show a clear mark if i call a ball out?
problem 1, sometimes on wet courts it´s difficult to see a clear mark
problem 2, once i look away from the mark, i might not be able to find it again with certainty. in situations when i don´t expect the call to be challenged in the first place that can happen.

Click to expand...

Well, the Code states that on any point ending shot or ball that you call out that is very close, that you should take an extra second to confirm you saw it correctly if you call it out. That being said, yes there are times when you don't see a clear mark; however, you know the ball is out. You are not required to show a ball mark, because it is still your call to make on your side of the net. But, if you start making a lot of out calls on balls that are very close, and every time you are asked to show a mark you say you don't have it or you don't know where it is, you are just going to lose credibility with opponents and officials.

Well, the Code states that on any point ending shot or ball that you call out that is very close, that you should take an extra second to confirm you saw it correctly if you call it out. That being said, yes there are times when you don't see a clear mark; however, you know the ball is out. You are not required to show a ball mark, because it is still your call to make on your side of the net. But, if you start making a lot of out calls on balls that are very close, and every time you are asked to show a mark you say you don't have it or you don't know where it is, you are just going to lose credibility with opponents and officials.

Click to expand...

thanks for answering. sometimes a ball is clearly out and yet your opponent/s will still question your call and ask to see a mark.
in cases like that, it sometimes happens that you can´t show the mark because you´ve taken your eyes off it, not expecting any controversy

I will absolutely overrule if my partner makes a bad call. The reason being is that in doubles people will not walk away saying 'that 1 guy cheats', they will say 'they cheat', I don't want to be included in the 'they' when I haven't made bad calls.

1) I am 100% the ball was inside the line. For balls that appear to be on the line or catching the back of the line I will not overrule my partner if they have the "better" view. The reason why I stick to this is because balls inside of the line can be called from almost anywhere on the court with almost 100% accuracy as long as you're looking at the ball. For balls that are "close" (on the line; back of the line; side of the line, ect.) you can be "mistaken" if you're at a bad angle.

2) If there is a mark contrary to the out call and I see the ball actually make the mark. I do this even on hard courts, not just on clay. If the ball is on the opposite side of the court and I can see that it left a mark I will go and take a look. If the ball is called "out" but the mark shows "on the line" upon closer inspection I will reverse the call.

I have a tendency to play balls that most people would call out (which is why some people refuse to play with me, lol) and every once in a while our opponents will ask me if I agree with my partners call. I havnt had to overrule any of those yet, but I have had to confirm the call a handful of times even though I have no obligation to do so.

I will absolutely overrule if my partner makes a bad call. The reason being is that in doubles people will not walk away saying 'that 1 guy cheats', they will say 'they cheat', I don't want to be included in the 'they' when I haven't made bad calls.

Click to expand...

If you see your partner made a bad call and you don't correct it,
It IS "they cheat", as not correcting an improper call is just the same as making the call.

^^^that's why I said I will overrule if my partner makes a bad call. Are you actually agreeing with me?

Click to expand...

Since you cared enough to comment,

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

Click to expand...

You just like to argue don't you? Why are going on about what would happen if I didn't overrule the bad call when I clearly said I would and I already made that point? I've wasted enough time with you...

Actually, what you said is you would overrule so you wouldn't be seen as a cheat...
as though you thought it would be wrongful to group you in with the bad caller.
It would not be wrongful though,
as not correcting the call would rightfully group you in with the cheater.
Imo it would be better to correct the call because you don't want to cheat,
and not out of concern of being seen as one.
Maybe that is what you meant.

Click to expand...

Right, because it would be impossible for a player to make a bad call, and for that person's partner to not see it (either clearly or at all)? In that case, yes it would be wrongful to group you in with the cheater, and I would think that a reasonable person would understand that on the other side of the net. The unreasonable ones are the one that say "They cheat" instead of he cheats because they ASSUME that the partner had a good enough look to overrule the partner.

Right, because it would be impossible for a player to make a bad call, and for that person's partner to not see it (either clearly or at all)? In that case, yes it would be wrongful to group you in with the cheater, and I would think that a reasonable person would understand that on the other side of the net. The unreasonable ones are the one that say "They cheat" instead of he cheats because they ASSUME that the partner had a good enough look to overrule the partner.

Click to expand...

I think you miss the built in assumptions in this. It is a given that the one player
made a clear bad call that you clearly saw. If you didn't see it and know it's incorrect,
there is no reason to correct or overrule now, is there?
If you saw it and know it to be incorrect, then you are a cheater if you don't get it corrected.

Personally I like the approach of talking with your partner and letting him do the correction.
If he refused, then I would have to award the point to the opponents based on our disagreement,
without saying he was wrong. I'd just say I saw it differently, thus the point was theirs.
As SA has suggested many times....the eyes can lie to you.

thanks for answering. sometimes a ball is clearly out and yet your opponent/s will still question your call and ask to see a mark.
in cases like that, it sometimes happens that you can´t show the mark because you´ve taken your eyes off it, not expecting any controversy

Click to expand...

This caught my attention because of what's potentially going on in a match when opponents keep questioning line calls. This past fall, I had to remember to talk with the high school team I help coach and remind them to keep their heads in case this constant second-guessing happens in a match. Some opponents will want occasional confirmation, but others will overdo it to make us more tentative about calling close balls "out". Especially with the kids, that can be a very effective (though unsporting) head game.

The issue with identifying a mark on the court is also a bit of an afterthought in an unofficiated match. Even when playing on clay courts where the ball marks are typically quite visible, players still need to make a prompt "out" call when the ball bounces, just like with any other surface. Otherwise opponents would be constantly hung up on confirming ball marks instead of abiding by their opponent's calls and maintaining a steady pace of play.

Opponents can't come over to your side of the net to examine the marks from their own shots and you're not obligated to constantly identify them. Everyone's responsibility is simply to make prompt and accurate calls. If you spot a mark that indicates that you made a bad call (called an "in" ball "out"), just apologize, give the point to your opponent(s), and carry on.

When I played the first match in 4.0 league (having moved from 3.5), I was paired with a veteran 4.0 player and the first thing he told me was..
"Do NOT overrule me even if you think the call is different" .. I was SHOCKED :shock:

I stick to a simple rule... whoever is closer (now reading SystemicAnomaly's post makes me wonder about this) will make the call, overrule if it's clear miss by my partner irrespective of the match situation and be ready to show the mark.

So when I play a league match especially with a new partner, I make sure to discuss this before match start.

^ Some players value team solidarity over fairness. With many players it is often a matter of pride or "saving face". If one players makes a call, it is up to their partner to support their call so that they are not embarrassed or "lose face". With many players, this concept of "saving face" is a strong cultural imperative. In most American and many Euro cultures, the concept of sportstsmanship or "fair play" is a strong moral imperative -- greater than the idea of "saving face".

^ Some players value team solidarity over fairness. With many players it is often a matter of pride or "saving face". If one players makes a call, it is up to their partner to support their call so that they are not embarrassed or "lose face". With many players, this concept of "saving face" is a strong cultural imperative. In most American and many Euro cultures, the concept of sportstsmanship or "fair play" is a strong moral imperative -- greater than the idea of "saving face".

.

Click to expand...

I think this is the reason some recommend the correction coming after a huddle with your partner to discuss and give him the chance to correct himself.

hmm... the moment you approach your partner to discuss the call would mean that there is a disagreement between you and your partner and that would mean the loss of point by default right?

Click to expand...

well, the situation is your partner just called it out, but you saw it clearly good.

As you go back to get position, you get together to talk...just like setting a plan
to poach or something.
I say, "Hey, I saw that one out and wanted to give you the chance to correct it".
My experience has been the partner will just look at them and go, "sorry, my
partner saw it good, so your point" or something like that. They have also always
thanked me too and confirmed they felt good about how we did it at our change over.
Other team usually compliments us too. Pretty good all around imo and experience.

So actually the moment we had the disagreement was at his out call BEFORE we
talked and the talking could have been about anything, BUT
the call will be corrected no matter what he says. I'm just giving him the chance to
do it and I think that saves face some too.

Not necessarily. If you didn't see it land, it's acceptable to ask your partner if he/she is sure of the call. Remember, you don't have to agree. You just cant disagree, and you can't both be unsure.

Click to expand...

None of these rules matters to those who willfully cheat.

The bottom line is this is an honor system and only works if people go by their honors. Agreement, disagreement, second guessing partner is all moot point because people, cheaters will learn quickly and do things that favor them.

The bottom line is this is an honor system and only works if people go by their honors. Agreement, disagreement, second guessing partner is all moot point because people, cheaters will learn quickly and do things that favor them.